Now it´s official: chambered bodies

[GLP4me]

I love my chambered LP. If I had a preference, I would probably choose one that isn't chambered. Why? I guess I'm either old school or just because I'm a purist. But I'm certainly not losing any sleep at night because my LP is chambered. It sounds great!
I was talking with my local authorized Gibson dealer Saturday and he told me that Gibson sent 2 LP's to Bose to do sound testing. Tonality, sustain, etc. 1 was chambered and 1 wasn't, it wasn't even weight relieved. Bose concluded that the difference was "minimal" at best. So basically, you couldn't tell the difference with just your ears.
Now I am not saying this story is either true or false. It's just what he told me.

[BobbyK]

I'm starting to have second thoughts on those scans of the BFG I'm always seeing...

my studio does not have chambering along the centre, only on the 'left'... of the pickups. it was made november 2006.

yet, the scan shows that the chambering goes in the area between the strap button and the tailpiece... which I know is not true on my guitar... it's solid there, like the es335.

I've done the tap test, and I can map out the chambering, sorta... maybe it has the cheese holes, but it does sound real hollow... the guitar's 8 pounds, by the way

this is just one guitar, but maybe gibson doesn't take out that much wood ?
that would be extremely light, and noticibly brighter...

[les strat]

Originally Posted by BobbyK

I'm starting to have second thoughts on those scans of the BFG I'm always seeing...

my studio does not have chambering along the centre, only on the 'left'... of the pickups. it was made november 2006.

yet, the scan shows that the chambering goes in the area between the strap button and the tailpiece... which I know is not true on my guitar... it's solid there, like the es335.

I've done the tap test, and I can map out the chambering, sorta... maybe it has the cheese holes, but it does sound real hollow... the guitar's 8 pounds, by the way

this is just one guitar, but maybe gibson doesn't take out that much wood ?
that would be extremely light, and noticibly brighter...

Maybe yours is just weight relieved and not chambered.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by les strat

Dude, I wouldn't say that. At least there is more of a solid center block in the Cloud 9's and it is an option - not manditory.

Cloud 9 (left) vs. USA routing.


Knowledge:
Anatomy of a Cloud 9 - Les Paul Forum

I really don't care.... I personally choose to buy lighter solid mahogany bodied LP's. But to say they sound the same is wishful thinking.

Sorry by my post dude.I´ve never saw before a body blank of a cloud 9;actually, I searched the body blank of this BFG model,the current pattern of the chambering we´re tallkin´here(on Gibson forums the webmaster deleted all of the old posts).
I had very hard times to accept the fact that my les paul is not a solid body guitar.But I´ve tested(and already knew that the new models are chambered) it before buying,"side by side" to non-chambered LPs. Dude, I admit it sounds a bit different, but I tell you it sounded good, really.Since they do sound a bit different, they do not sound exactly the same,but the sound is still LES PAUL. And the more important thing: I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDS!(that´s what really matters in the end) I could have chosen a non chambered, but my 2007 was the one,and I´m happy with that.Soon I´ll buy an other LP, probably a pre 2006 model, just because I love les pauls, and to have variety (I´m in love to a heavy weight and "almost muddy" sound `81 model).
And I´m not a kiddo, I do´not use pedals(ok, just a HomeBrew Medicine Bawl Wah ,a DLS Echo tap delay,and an ocasional DLS Chorus Vib,all true bypass),my amp is a boutique amp called Vintage Cobra (all tube amp,with EL34 power tubes),non-reverb model,made by Augusto Pedrone(THE man).And I tell you, I do not LOOK LIKE SLASH- I´m almost bold,use glasses and I´m as white as milk.....BUT MY GUITAR TONE IS AWESOME-EVEN WITH A CHAMBERED MODEL.
Gibson is here for the money.I was in the search for THE sound."But a shitty-chambered model????"- YES,I LIKE IT, A LOT.

[eddyrox]

Originally Posted by RFR

In that link, I see nowhere that Gibson is stating they are all chambered.

I know they do chamber them, but I see nothing stated as such.

was wondering the same!

[needlespauls]

you to click on the specifications tab, then you'll see a les paul with explaination points on different parts of the guitar. click on the pointer on the body of the guitar, and it explains it.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by needlespauls

you to click on the specifications tab, then you'll see a les paul with explaination points on different parts of the guitar. click on the pointer on the body of the guitar, and it explains it.

+

[les strat]

Originally Posted by alexx

Sorry by my post dude.I´ve never saw before a body blank of a cloud 9;actually, I searched the body blank of this BFG model,the current pattern of the chambering we´re tallkin´here(on Gibson forums the webmaster deleted all of the old posts).
I had very hard times to accept the fact that my les paul is not a solid body guitar.But I´ve tested(and already knew that the new models are chambered) it before buying,"side by side" to non-chambered LPs. Dude, I admit it sounds a bit different, but I tell you it sounded good, really.Since they do sound a bit different, they do not sound exactly the same,but the sound is still LES PAUL. And the more important thing: I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDS!(that´s what really matters in the end) I could have chosen a non chambered, but my 2007 was the one,and I´m happy with that.Soon I´ll buy an other LP, probably a pre 2006 model, just because I love les pauls, and to have variety (I´m in love to a heavy weight and "almost muddy" sound `81 model).
And I´m not a kiddo, I do´not use pedals(ok, just a HomeBrew Medicine Bawl Wah ,a DLS Echo tap delay,and an ocasional DLS Chorus Vib,all true bypass),my amp is a boutique amp called Vintage Cobra (all tube amp,with EL34 power tubes),non-reverb model,made by Augusto Pedrone(THE man).And I tell you, I do not LOOK LIKE SLASH- I´m almost bold,use glasses and I´m as white as milk.....BUT MY GUITAR TONE IS AWESOME-EVEN WITH A CHAMBERED MODEL.
Gibson is here for the money.I was in the search for THE sound."But a shitty-chambered model????"- YES,I LIKE IT, A LOT.

Man, the there's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a chambered Les Paul. Chambered can be excellent, but I just have a probelm with Gibson passing it off like no one would notice and now they are acting like it is an upgrade or something. It's insulting our intellegence trying to sneak that shit on everyone until they were busted. Why the hell did they not make it an option like with the Historics instead of imposing it upon the whole damn USA line?
I am not taking away from anyone's axe. I am just listening with my ears and can hear a bit of difference. Difference can be good. Options are better.

Now rock that MF'er!

[BobbyK]

I want to see a scan of a late 2006 standard

[alexx]

Originally Posted by les strat

Man, the there's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a chambered Les Paul. Chambered can be excellent, but I just have a probelm with Gibson passing it off like no one would notice and now they are acting like it is an upgrade or something. It's insulting our intellegence trying to sneak that shit on everyone until they were busted. Why the hell did they not make it an option like with the Historics instead of imposing it upon the whole damn USA line?
I am not taking away from anyone's axe. I am just listening with my ears and can hear a bit of difference. Difference can be good. Options are better.

Now rock that MF'er!

I agree with you dude, and I just can´t figure out the reason of this chambering think,and I don´t believe that gibson is using cheaper mahogany just now. Pehaps to compete to PRS guitars?(that are "lighter" that regular lps?)I really don´t know, time will tell. And I can say that these chambered sound a bit different,lacks some off the chunky bottom end that we are so used to hear, love and want to ourselves.
But I also know that are some purists dudes out there that are judging the guitar ONLY because it´s chambered , not because by the sound ( somethink like " you will LOOK like slash", or if a rose smells like shit , is not a rose anymore, and all that purist bullshit). To my "nose", the chambered can be called a rose, but with a slight different smell, but a good one.That´s my point,ok? Sorry if I sounded too agressive, but all that stuff pissed me off.

[alexx]

Dudes , this has nothing to do with this thread,but I´m listenning to Thin Lizzy fot the first time right now,a song called THE SUN GOES DOWN, with a beautiful solo from THE John Sykes....holly s...t! It sounds so damn goooood.....

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by alexx

I agree with you dude, and I just can´t figure out the reason of this chambering think,and I don´t believe that gibson is using cheaper mahogany just now. Pehaps to compete to PRS guitars?(that are "lighter" that regular lps?)I really don´t know, time will tell. And I can say that these chambered sound a bit different,lacks some off the chunky bottom end that we are so used to hear, love and want to ourselves.
But I also know that are some purists dudes out there that are judging the guitar ONLY because it´s chambered , not because by the sound ( somethink like " you will LOOK like slash", or if a rose smells like shit , is not a rose anymore, and all that purist bullshit). To my "nose", the chambered can be called a rose, but with a slight different smell, but a good one.That´s my point,ok? Sorry if I sounded too agressive, but all that stuff pissed me off.

Dude, don't take it all so seriously. If you like your guitar, thats all that matters.

My comments were just because of the people who say they sound the same. That pisses me off as much as the other bothers you. I've owned probably 40 guitars in my life, and I currently have 18 of them... None of them sound the same.

I honestly feel that if somebody can't tell the difference in sound between a Gibson Les Paul and a Gibson Les Paul that is chambered they should focusing more on their playing and training their ear than on buying high end instruments.

The rest of my comments were based on the fact that this is a HUGE change to the Les Paul guitar, and everything that the Les Paul guitar has been since the first prototype rolled into Lester William Polsfuss' hands in '51 or '52.

All I'm saying is you can only make so many changes before its not the same thing anymore. I never once said the guitars sound bad, I said they don't sound or feel the same. They simply do NOT. If this is the future of the Les Paul, so be it... At least now Gibson is forced to advertise it as chambered, thanks to emails from people like me and countless others who wanted to know why Les Pauls were suddenly half the weight, and sounded like chambered guitars.

When I emailed back in '06, the response I got was that they could only get 'lower grade mahogany' because the species is going extinct... which is in turn way heavier and people were complaining about the weight, so Gibson was experimenting with 'more' weight relief than used in previous years.

If you email them and ask now, I guarantee the devils in marketing will tell you its an improvement.

Welcome to the business of being the biggest guitar manufacturer in the world.

I hate PRS guitars personally, but they pick better woods, and have better sources for wood normally. They also do not have all the hands on construction that Gibson has. All of their bodys are cut and sanded by machine apparently. The only thing Gibson does with a machine is the body blank, routing and now chambering I suppose. Almost the entire rest of the process is done by hand, including the sanding of the neck which gives the guitar its personality.

PRS guitars have never felt handmade to me, probably because they are not.

Are either of these guitar companies producing wares that are worth what they are charging? Hell no. I know small luthiers who make maybe 100 guitars a year (if that!) that are the absolute highest quality instruments and priced at half of what Gibson sells things for.

This is starting to change. Some guys out there will make you a single guitar for $5000. I personally don't think there is a guitar out there worth that much), unless they really have some special wood. (Some guys have canabalized 59's or other wood with mojo that would be worth paying for).

I know a good deal about wood, but I've never built a guitar... I know all the parts and materials can be bought, even small scale (not large, obscene orders like Gibson or PRS) for $1000 or under, using the highest quality woods and parts, and I could get somebody else to paint it for less than $400.

Labour has to count, because building a guitar takes a LONG time... But to be quite honest, companies like Gibson make Les Paul Customs for about $450 a guitar... Retail price of $3600.

I've been a musician for a long time. I've seen Gibson Les Pauls go up from $400 to almost $6000 they are now, retail. I also run my own business, and know a thing or 2 about cutting corners where it isn't obvious to increase margins.

If you honestly believe Gibson, the largest and most famous guitar manufacturer in the entire world has decided to make a drastic change to their flagship model because its an 'improvement'... Well I'm sorry my friend, but you're looking at it the wrong way.

Also the 'flagship' model is now produced in the 'Historic' shop in Memphis, for 3x the retail price, no less. Funny how that works out. Nashville has been making expensive instruments full of flaws since '75, and the big G still doesn't trust them with their top of the line stuff. They closed Kalamazoo because union labour cost too much in '84, and those guys had been making instruments for 90 years prior to that!!

If you knew what the average builder gets paid working at Gibson in Nashville, you'd probably laugh. Lets put it this way, a Walmart door 'greeter' here in Calgary makes $16.50 an hour, plus benefits.

The last guy I talked to who left Gibson Nashville was getting paid $13.50 and he was sanding. Sanding $3000 instruments all day long.

Everything Gibson does is a business decision, and business decisions that don't make you money are not made.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by LoKi

Dude, don't take it all so seriously. If you like your guitar, thats all that matters.

My comments were just because of the people who say they sound the same. That pisses me off as much as the other bothers you. I've owned probably 40 guitars in my life, and I currently have 18 of them... None of them sound the same.

I honestly feel that if somebody can't tell the difference in sound between a Gibson Les Paul and a Gibson Les Paul that is chambered they should focusing more on their playing and training their ear than on buying high end instruments.

The rest of my comments were based on the fact that this is a HUGE change to the Les Paul guitar, and everything that the Les Paul guitar has been since the first prototype rolled into Lester William Polsfuss' hands in '51 or '52.

All I'm saying is you can only make so many changes before its not the same thing anymore. I never once said the guitars sound bad, I said they don't sound or feel the same. They simply do NOT. If this is the future of the Les Paul, so be it... At least now Gibson is forced to advertise it as chambered, thanks to emails from people like me and countless others who wanted to know why Les Pauls were suddenly half the weight, and sounded like chambered guitars.

When I emailed back in '06, the response I got was that they could only get 'lower grade mahogany' because the species is going extinct... which is in turn way heavier and people were complaining about the weight, so Gibson was experimenting with 'more' weight relief than used in previous years.

If you email them and ask now, I guarantee the devils in marketing will tell you its an improvement.

Welcome to the business of being the biggest guitar manufacturer in the world.

I hate PRS guitars personally, but they pick better woods, and have better sources for wood normally. They also do not have all the hands on construction that Gibson has. All of their bodys are cut and sanded by machine apparently. The only thing Gibson does with a machine is the body blank, routing and now chambering I suppose. Almost the entire rest of the process is done by hand, including the sanding of the neck which gives the guitar its personality.

PRS guitars have never felt handmade to me, probably because they are not.

Are either of these guitar companies producing wares that are worth what they are charging? Hell no. I know small luthiers who make maybe 100 guitars a year (if that!) that are the absolute highest quality instruments and priced at half of what Gibson sells things for.

This is starting to change. Some guys out there will make you a single guitar for $5000. I personally don't think there is a guitar out there worth that much), unless they really have some special wood. (Some guys have canabalized 59's or other wood with mojo that would be worth paying for).

I know a good deal about wood, but I've never built a guitar... I know all the parts and materials can be bought, even small scale (not large, obscene orders like Gibson or PRS) for $1000 or under, using the highest quality woods and parts, and I could get somebody else to paint it for less than $400.

Labour has to count, because building a guitar takes a LONG time... But to be quite honest, companies like Gibson make Les Paul Customs for about $450 a guitar... Retail price of $3600.

I've been a musician for a long time. I've seen Gibson Les Pauls go up from $400 to almost $6000 they are now, retail. I also run my own business, and know a thing or 2 about cutting corners where it isn't obvious to increase margins.

If you honestly believe Gibson, the largest and most famous guitar manufacturer in the entire world has decided to make a drastic change to their flagship model because its an 'improvement'... Well I'm sorry my friend, but you're looking at it the wrong way.

Also the 'flagship' model is now produced in the 'Historic' shop in Memphis, for 3x the retail price, no less. Funny how that works out. Nashville has been making expensive instruments full of flaws since '75, and the big G still doesn't trust them with their top of the line stuff. They closed Kalamazoo because union labour cost too much in '84, and those guys had been making instruments for 90 years prior to that!!

If you knew what the average builder gets paid working at Gibson in Nashville, you'd probably laugh. Lets put it this way, a Walmart door 'greeter' here in Calgary makes $16.50 an hour, plus benefits.

The last guy I talked to who left Gibson Nashville was getting paid $13.50 and he was sanding. Sanding $3000 instruments all day long.

Everything Gibson does is a business decision, and business decisions that don't make you money are not made.

Dude, you seems to be a nice guy. I know that Gibson is a big manufacturer, and they´re here just to make some real money. I truly believe that mahogany used today is a lower grade, but in my opinion, this cheaper mahogany has been around for some time, this is not new....., and I´m not naive.
And as I said before, I had hard times to accept this chambering thing. In a dream world , all of ours guitars should be done with the finest materials by the best luthiers,but that´s only in ours dreams.In thr real world, we have to deal with their business, and strive to get the best out of it, in other words, try to find a good instrument that worth all the money spent.....
Here in Brazil , a Standard costs US$4285,00 , used.Imagine what a high end lp I would buy in united states with all this cash....

[GLP4me]

Originally Posted by LoKi

If you knew what the average builder gets paid working at Gibson in Nashville, you'd probably laugh. Lets put it this way, a Walmart door 'greeter' here in Calgary makes $16.50 an hour, plus benefits.

The last guy I talked to who left Gibson Nashville was getting paid $13.50 and he was sanding. Sanding $3000 instruments all day long.

Everything Gibson does is a business decision, and business decisions that don't make you money are not made.

I've worked in woodworking manufacturing facilities for quite some time and I'll tell you right now my friend, that being a laborer in this business, you get paid squat! The only way you can make money in the woodworking business is to own it. I worked on furniture that costs much, much more than a $3000 guitar and I didn't make anywhere this $13.50 an hour. Heck I didn't even make that as a supervisor in that business! I am not laughing at all at $13.50. I think that is pretty damn good money for that work.

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by GLP4me

I've worked in woodworking manufacturing facilities for quite some time and I'll tell you right now my friend, that being a laborer in this business, you get paid squat! The only way you can make money in the woodworking business is to own it. I worked on furniture that costs much, much more than a $3000 guitar and I didn't make anywhere this $13.50 an hour. Heck I didn't even make that as a supervisor in that business! I am not laughing at all at $13.50. I think that is pretty damn good money for that work.

I may have gotten the figures confused, I think it worked out $13.50 an hour Canadian currency, though the Canadian dollar has pretty much always been between 60-70 cents on the US, until recently. I still have the email from him somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it out.

I think the reality of it was minimum wage in the US, or slightly higher.

Not exactly skilled luthier pay!

[diceman]

Originally Posted by les strat

I just wish you had an option between the solid body and chambered in the USA Standard line, especially since it is the iconic "solid body" guitar.

That is my thought as well.

[brettk7]

Originally Posted by diceman

That is my thought as well.

+1

I'm all for variety.

I think if Gibson offered both a chambered and a non-chambered Les Paul that more people would get EXACTLY what they wanted with their new guitar.


You have to think, for every person that wants the O-G style, there is probably two people that want a lighter one though.

[GLP4me]

Originally Posted by LoKi

I may have gotten the figures confused, I think it worked out $13.50 an hour Canadian currency, though the Canadian dollar has pretty much always been between 60-70 cents on the US, until recently. I still have the email from him somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it out.

I think the reality of it was minimum wage in the US, or slightly higher.

Not exactly skilled luthier pay!

Yeah...I agree. Trust me, I know. But it is the grim reality of woodworking. You really have to do it for the love of it.
I had to get out of it because my wife and would literally have nothing. And I mean NOTHING. I had to change my career and now we have our own house, a brand new vehicle AND, most importantly, a new LP. as well as other things. We would not have any of those things if I had stayed in the woodworking business. So I agree, it is not fair. But it isn't just Gibson that's the bad guy here. It's all woodworking manufacturing facilities in general.

[GLP4me]

Originally Posted by les strat

I just wish you had an option between the solid body and chambered in the USA Standard line, especially since it is the iconic "solid body" guitar.

I totally agree with that! I'm willing to bet they wouldn't sell too many chambered models though. hehehe

[LoKi]

Originally Posted by brettk7

+1

I'm all for variety.

I think if Gibson offered both a chambered and a non-chambered Les Paul that more people would get EXACTLY what they wanted with their new guitar.


You have to think, for every person that wants the O-G style, there is probably two people that want a lighter one though.

This I know for a fact isn't true. Its too bad Gibson is a private company and we can't get exact sales figures, but I know personally that Historics are far outselling USA models in this town, and its the same in my hometown.

Browse around on the net. Most people who are happy with them either have back problems from decades of Les Paul use, or have never owned a Les Paul before. Everyone else seems to be on the other side. There middle ground is thin ground indeed.

Besides, Historics don't even have swiss cheese holes, and some of them are in the 7-8lb range. How can they do it? How can hundreds of other companies make solid body guitars out of the same wood and have them be lighter without chambering? Its most likely the same reason why Gibson recently said that higher quality flame maple is now harder to find and way more expensive...

No other company using highly figured maple has said the same thing. Where does Gibson get their trees? Antarctica?

The same chambered Standards have been hanging on the wall here for quite some time. The only one that sold was a Chambered Classic, and it was a beautiful guitar, weighed about 5lbs. I didn't mind the sound of it, but it felt weird. When I picked it up, expecting a solid heavy guitar, I put too much muscle into it and almost threw it across the room.

Historics have all sold, and been replaced with new stock.

How come PRS can make a solid body guitar that doesn't weigh as much as Ruben Studdard? Hell the dimensions on the single cut are close enough that Gibson tried to sue over it.. Yet they are lightweight, perfectly matched tops *at no extra cost* and have no holes or chambering.

Too bad I dislike PRS so much.

[Paul86]

Just to clarify,
What they call "Honduras" mahogany is actually from... Brazil. Now, the old mahogany trees have all, or almost all, been cut and sold, and old wood = lighter wood. Not only because of the wood itself (the bigger a tree, the more you have of 'good' wood), but because in the old days when demand wasn't that high there was more time for the wood to 'dry' (which you do, incidentally, by submerging the logs into water!).
So, is the reason behind the chambering one related to economics (AS ALWAYS)? Definitely! Of course! In the words of a former President - 'It's the economy, stupid!' Does it mean the chambered guitars are worse? Well, it depends, doesn't it?
There are now some people trying to market some late 70's and early 80's guitars as 'vintage', which is laughable really - I'm old enough to remember the time when guitar making in America took a royal kick in the ass by the Japanese. Why suddenly nobody wanted to buy American anymore? Because the 'management' people who moved in (Norlin, Fender were all part of bigger conglomerates) decided to make the factories more 'efficient' and 'economically viable', which means things like, 'Why are you people still making amps with tubes? Haven't you heard of transistors?', or 'This amplifier has some nasty distortion, let's fix it, pronto!'. Not only were the Japanese versions of American-made instruments cheaper, but at that period in history American instruments were, for the most part, CRAP! And all because of very sound economics - cutting corners worked for the other industries, right?
There are many duds out there, irrespective of age. Go find yourself a guitar and fall in love with it, now THAT you can take to the bank.

[LoKi]

To be honest I'd consider any Kalamazoo Gibson to be vintage. Thats where it started, and where the era ended.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by Paul86

Just to clarify,
What they call "Honduras" mahogany is actually from... Brazil. Now, the old mahogany trees have all, or almost all, been cut and sold, and old wood = lighter wood. Not only because of the wood itself (the bigger a tree, the more you have of 'good' wood), but because in the old days when demand wasn't that high there was more time for the wood to 'dry' (which you do, incidentally, by submerging the logs into water!).
So, is the reason behind the chambering one related to economics (AS ALWAYS)? Definitely! Of course! In the words of a former President - 'It's the economy, stupid!' Does it mean the chambered guitars are worse? Well, it depends, doesn't it?
There are now some people trying to market some late 70's and early 80's guitars as 'vintage', which is laughable really - I'm old enough to remember the time when guitar making in America took a royal kick in the ass by the Japanese. Why suddenly nobody wanted to buy American anymore? Because the 'management' people who moved in (Norlin, Fender were all part of bigger conglomerates) decided to make the factories more 'efficient' and 'economically viable', which means things like, 'Why are you people still making amps with tubes? Haven't you heard of transistors?', or 'This amplifier has some nasty distortion, let's fix it, pronto!'. Not only were the Japanese versions of American-made instruments cheaper, but at that period in history American instruments were, for the most part, CRAP! And all because of very sound economics - cutting corners worked for the other industries, right?
There are many duds out there, irrespective of age. Go find yourself a guitar and fall in love with it, now THAT you can take to the bank.

Guitars such as Hurricane, Greco, Tokai, Burny, are fine instruments, and I think that´s the Historics were the Gibson´s answer., now, look at this bullshit:

"Chambering the Les Paul: A Marriage of Weight and Tone
Dave Hunter | 10.25.2007

Not many players today like to struggle with the back-breaking weight of an
overly heavy guitar, but relatively fewer realize that relieving the load can
very often also have positive consequences on an instrument’s sound. Gibson
first put unseen routes, or “chambers,” in some Les Paul bodies purely as a
weight-reduction measure at a time when adequately light stocks of mahogany
were difficult to come by. Today, however, the craftsmen at Gibson USA take a
more holistic view of the construction process, with the awareness that every
change to the formula will have repercussions on an instrument’s sound. The
result is a synchronicity of weight and tone that benefits the customer from
whichever angle you approach it.

“Back in the early 1980s, when Gibson started weight relieving the Les Paul
models, there was not a specific rhyme or reason to the weight-relief holes,”
says Frank Johns of Gibson USA. Lately, however, Gibson has refined the
process considerably. “We wanted to focus on a more scientific approach to
weight relieving our guitars, to update the design to give it more of a
purpose with both tone and weight in mind.”

The chambering process applied to many Les Paul models in the Gibson USA range
results in guitars that appear entirely “solid,” yet benefit from this finely
tuned approach to weight reduction. In fact, a guitarist could play one of
these models for years and never realize there was air within that solid
tonewood. To achieve this cutting-edge form of weight relief, Gibson carves
carefully mapped-out chambers in the solid mahogany backs of applicable Les
Pauls using a CNC (Computer Numeric Controlled) Router before the maple top is
glued on. The positioning of these routes has been determined through close
examination of the resonant characteristics of the Les Paul—so as well as
taking the kinks out of your back and shoulder, these lighter Gibsons also
display further nuances of tone that aren’t found in a heavier,
solid-mahogany-backed guitar.

Of course, Johns reminds us, “no two guitars sound or react the same,” even
side-by-side examples of the same model, which is part of the beauty and
appeal of a finely crafted instrument. But taking the chambered Les Pauls as a
whole, Johns says some common threads emerge as a result of the process:
“Acoustically the guitars are louder, and we have also noticed increased
sustain and resonance. Customers are echoing the same conclusions with their
new Les Pauls on various guitar forums, too.”

Check out the success of Gibson USA’s chambering techniques by picking up any
of a number of new Les Pauls, including the LP Studios, Classics, and
Standards. Alongside these, the Les Paul Supreme has its own, entirely
different weight relief system, which has been engineered specifically to
benefit that model. Les Pauls in the Custom Shop’s VOS range, on the other
hand, are prepared with bodies that are not weight relieved, but which are
generally light and resonant thanks to the rare and expensive wood stocks
acquired for use in these guitars, which is reflected in the increased prices
of these models.

This article was prepared with the input of Frank Johns, Keith Medley, and
Kevin Philbin of Gibson USA. "

[alexx]

iN THAT "ARTICLE" THEY ADMIT THAT "Les Pauls in the Custom Shop’s VOS range, on the other
hand, are prepared with bodies that are not weight relieved, but which are
generally light and resonant thanks to the rare and expensive wood stocks
acquired for use in these guitars, which is reflected in the increased prices
of these models."
In other words, the cheaper wood goes to USA line.
But why did they chambered the guitars so much? What about diggin more holes on the swiss cheese pattern instead of makin a "single big hole", to weight relief just a little, without changing the sound?

[Robster]

That is a good question, Alex. I've wondered the same thing myself...

R

[BobbyK]

Originally Posted by alexx

iN THAT "ARTICLE" THEY ADMIT THAT "Les Pauls in But why did they chambered the guitars so much? What about diggin more holes on the swiss cheese pattern instead of makin a "single big hole", to weight relief just a little, without changing the sound?

I think Gibson's telling the truth - the chambers were studied over and over, and they concluded that they actually helped the guitar's resonance.

though, I'd still like a Les Paul without chambering, just because of the higher quality wood that I'd want.

[alexx]

Originally Posted by BobbyK

I think Gibson's telling the truth - the chambers were studied over and over, and they concluded that they actually helped the guitar's resonance.

though, I'd still like a Les Paul without chambering, just because of the higher quality wood that I'd want.

Dude, I don´t believe that(chambers studied). Of course the guitar sounds pretty good, but a litlle different from the original formula.But I´m so disapointed with the construction of My 2007 standard: the biding cracked in 11 pieces near the bottom pin(without any impact,and I don´t visualize how could it happened). None of them is loosen yet, but before that I`ll sell it and buy another, probably a 2004 or even a 81.It´s a pity, I love that LP.....

[GLP4me]

Originally Posted by alexx

Dude, I don´t believe that(chambers studied). Of course the guitar sounds pretty good, but a litlle different from the original formula.But I´m so disapointed with the construction of My 2007 standard: the biding cracked in 11 pieces near the bottom pin(without any impact,and I don´t visualize how could it happened). None of them is loosen yet, but before that I`ll sell it and buy another, probably a 2004 or even a 81.It´s a pity, I love that LP.....

Perhaps you just happen to get the lemon of the bunch? It's like with new autos, every automkaer has a lemon in every model. It's a shame no matter who got the guitar that it has cracks in the binding. Can you return it? Do you have any pics Alexx?

[alexx]

Originally Posted by GLP4me

Perhaps you just happen to get the lemon of the bunch? It's like with new autos, every automkaer has a lemon in every model. It's a shame no matter who got the guitar that it has cracks in the binding. Can you return it? Do you have any pics Alexx?

It´s used, dude, I can´t return it. Probably it´s a lemon ....the most sad think is that I love the guitar. Did not pictured yet... ELEVEN cracks dude

[LongBeach]

Alexx, due to your comments, I completly freaked out and inspected my
07 Standard last night with a fine-tooth-comb. Luckily, it's perfect.
Sounds like you got a lemon, no fun intended, I would be smokin-pissed
myself.

As far as the chambering goes, (IMO) I have a Classic with swiss-cheese holesthat I love. I've noted this before, when played clean (07 chambered),
ya, it is very bright, but I typically play dirty/distorted, and I really dont
hear that great of a difference(IMO). As time goes by, I hear a little & little more difference, but not to any major degree that would make me not like it,
and or be unsatified with it.

But yes, if I had the option of chambered opposed to weight releaved, I would
have picked the weight releaved. But I still really like the axe.